Monday, August 09, 2010

Time to Leave — France Is Lost

Alibekov #1

Our French correspondent Robert Marchenoir has compiled a report based on a translated blog post by a disaffected Muslim, and has added his own commentary.

Time to leave — France is lost
by Robert Marchenoir

Alibekov has had just about enough. This 30-year-old conservative blogger, French-born, newlywed, with a good university education, has just decided to turn his back on his home country, where his grandparents hid Jews during the Second World War. He has almost completed his immigration papers for Canada. He is leaving soon. Next step, possibly: the United States.

After university, Alibekov lived and worked for six years in Africa. He returned home a short while ago to the Paris region. What he saw horrified him. Last June, he filed this post on his blog, Bouteille à l’Amer, which he shares with his friend Memento Mouloud. All the facts in the following eyewitness report are genuine, he told me — only the names have been changed:

First of all, let us extend a warm welcome to Abiba. She has just arrived from Cameroon, thanks to a tourist visa her husband got her by bribing some official. Abiba plans to give birth in France. She expects the authorities will be kind enough to grant her legal residency status, because of her child. She will spend one or two years in low-cost hotels, moving from time to time. [The government will pick up the bill — translator.] After that, the happy family will be granted a city council flat by the social services, on the grounds of her being a single mother. They will also provide her with a job, so she can pay part of the rent.

This valuable advice has been passed on to her by her aunt, who has been living in France for five years. Her aunt had received it previously from a cousin, who has been living in France for ten years.

We are headed for the district of Seine-Saint-Denis, in order to attend a funeral in an African family.

[Seine-Saint-Denis is a district adjacent to the northern limit of Paris proper. The first bishop of Paris, Saint Denis, was buried there in the 3rd century. French kings have been buried in the basilica of the town of Saint-Denis since the 7th century. The ill-famed district, also known by its administrative number, “the 93rd”, is nowadays one of the most heavily populated by immigrants.]

We reach high-rise concrete buildings, planted next to some wasteland. I am immediately reminded of The Dormant Beast, [the sci-fi comic book] by Enki Bilal: an apocalyptic landscape, repulsively filthy, and an out-of-this world population.

Bearded men with moronic looks, dressed as if they were in Islamabad, come out from nowhere, huddling together. I try to catch their eyes, but their gaze remains perfectly alien to me. All I can see in it is some sort of mystical fear, mixed with unfathomable stupidity.

Alibekov #2Slouching on a bench next to tuned-up cars with blaring stereos, some youngsters listen to “Raï and B” music (so as to assume a “French” identity, as opposed to an American one). They dutifully proceed to create a tapestry of glistening spit to stamp their feet on.

Next to the front door lies a heap of refuse originating from the local McDonald’s, KFC, and grocery store. Banana peels and peanut shells degrade into a strange form of humus.

A diminutive white lady, followed by her ten years-old son, makes a desperate effort to keep the place bearable: while on her way, she stoops to pick up three discarded bags of French fries, and throws them in the bin where they belong. As soon as she walks into the lobby, a youngster dumps his uneaten shawarma right in front of the glass door.

We proceed towards the Eastern building, staircase B. The corridor is flanked by mail boxes with Arab names, sometimes barely emerging from under fading graffiti.

[Expletive omitted.] The stench of urine is suffocating. Tears come instantly to my eyes. It gets worse as we set foot in the elevator. I am advised to stay clear of the steel sides. Once polished, they are now stained with vertical streaks of rust. It seems the elevator’s walls react to urine as swiftly as pH test paper.
- - - - - - - - -
On the twelfth floor, we are faced with a choice: one door is adorned with Koranic verses, the other with photographs of Mecca and the Kaaba. We run into a couple of retired French blue-collar workers of exquisite kindness. Just the type of people the System would describe as loathsome racists and fascists. Does Konaré live nearby? Well, they say, his third wife actually lives just opposite to them on the tenth floor; however, Konaré himself lives in the Western building with his second wife.

Staircase C is already chock-full with twenty-odd people waiting their turn to pay their respects — or to get a free meal. Seventy individuals altogether have gathered at the place, coming from three families only. Some of them learn on the spot that they are relatives, because their father had children with his own cousin, or because some half-brother married his sister before wedding wife number four.

I elbow my way through to the strategic centre of the house, and I sit on the floor. Next to me are two bearded men, wearing boubous and keffiyehs. One is browsing an interactive Koran on his iPhone. The other keeps peppering the crowd with non-stop blessings. The assembly responds in kind every ten seconds.

Women bring in plastic basins full of greasy rice, soaked in mutton juice. We assemble around them by groups of five, and help ourselves with our right hand, chanting “hamdoullah” roughly every minute and a half. Each time a girl comes out of the kitchen to tend the mourners, at least one guy asks whom she is married to. I feel I am in the middle of a group of shepherds anxious to buy a few more goats.

I am informed that each member of this happy crowd lives off the child benefits granted by the state to their multiple wives. Each man owns ten to twelve children. Each wife has her own flat assigned to her, courtesy of the city council. Most Frenchmen think polygamous Africans share their lodgings with their different wives. This is absolutely wrong. The whole point is for each wife to benefit from a certain degree of material autonomy. This, in turn, shows the financial power of the husband. Welfare benefits, of course, pervert this principle, since the husband does not need to work anymore. But the wives still get the money. Let me say this once again: France hands out a city council flat to each wife of a polygamous African living in the country. It is the man, however, who collects the state benefits, of which he gives back a tiny amount to his women.

The goal is to save enough money for a new wedding, which may well involve a bride plucked directly out of Africa — usually a younger one.

People mingle and chatter. Abdallah tells his neighbour that, with the money from the child benefits, he is currently building a house in Bamako for his fourth wife, who is twenty years old.

Moussa is worried. He made the mistake of telling the Préfecture that his wife’s sister was, well, also his wife. Therefore, the police warned Abibatou that she would have to leave the country within a month. She refuses. “What will my folks think of me, back in Africa, if they see me return? They believe I have a good situation in France. If I go back with my hands empty, they will make a fool of me. No way. I’m staying here.” So Abibatou moved to a cousin’s place, and is trying to evade the authorities.

An endless string of such stories is exchanged. Malek, Oumar, Tariq… Their worries about women, money, jealousy between wives, weddings among cousins, children born handicapped due to inbreeding… (they believe it is because of sorcery).

I feel nauseous. This is not France. I cannot believe it. Some of those guys have been settled here since the 1960’s, and they still live within their own closed community, totally impervious to their host country — except when welfare benefits are concerned — ruled by Islamic superstition and by the tribal mores of the remotest African villages.

And I do not mean Africa under the French colonial rule, which was much more liveable. Schools and hospitals, at least, were functional and free. One has to infer that they immigrate in France in order to find Africa as it was before the French empire, which is depicted in horrible terms by corrupt Third-World leaders and by immigrant lobbies such as Indigènes de la République. [An Islamo-Marxist outfit, whose leader, Houria Bouteldja, made an infamous pun on television: she forged the word “Souchiens” as a replacement to “Français de souche”, which is the way the anti-immigrant crowd describe themselves, meaning “the aboriginal French”. However, Bouteldja said “French” Muslims used to call the French “souchiens”, obviously trying to convey the real meaning of “sous-chiens”, underdogs. We know the unclean status the dog holds in Islam.]

I am trying hard to figure out what opportunity these immigrants might represent for our country. But faced with reality, I am at a loss to make something out of all that sweet talk about multiculturalism. Theories about “a French breed of Islam” are wishful thinking. Facts are facts, and it is the burden of die-hard immigration lobbyists to explain to us why it would be legitimate to impose such a presence to the French people, without, at the same time, imposing on African immigrants, as their part of the deal, a requirement to abandon upon arrival at the airport their boubous dyed in the worst of what the underdeveloped world has to offer.

From his post, you can guess that Alibekov has had his fair share of “racism” and “Islamophobia” indictments thrown at him. Whenever this occurs, he reaches for a small black box in his right pocket, and lays it on the table in front of him. It’s his own tactical nuclear weapon. He presses the big red button, and…

— My wife is a black Muslim African.

If his adversary still moves, or mumbles, he reaches for his left pocket, and out comes another small black box. He presses the big red button, and…

— I’m a Muslim myself.

— Whaaat?…

Now, I’m sure this is banned by the Geneva convention. Then again, everybody has the right to argue his case.

“I’m a cultural Christian, although I don’t go to church”, Alibekov explained me. “But my in-laws blackmailed me into converting to Islam, otherwise they would keep harassing my wife”.

So he just decided to go through the motions. He does not believe a word of what he said, and his African family does not care: as long as he said the words, he’s a Muslim to them.

Alibekov #3 — weapons trafficked in the French suburbsYou cannot sing sweet nursery rhymes about the goodness of African multiculturalism to Alibekov. He has been there, he has lived for two years in areas where civil war was rife, and he has nice stories of his own to tell you: how he saw a warrior wearing a necklace of penises sliced off the enemy; how he took pictures of some other fighters eating the limbs of people they had just killed; how, in some parts of Africa, thieves are punished by ramming a three-inch nail into the top of their skull (they survive — as human legumes; and as living lightning rods).

You also get the sense, through his writings, that he has a real fondness for Africa. But it does not mean he likes France being turned into an African province.

And neither does his African wife.

“She was aghast when she first set foot in France”, says Alibekov. “She told me: why, this is Africa!”

(Note that the — white — prefect Paul Girod de Langlade was summarily dismissed by the Interior minister when he said just that in front of some black private security employees, while in transit in a Paris airport in August 2009; he was also convicted of racial abuse and ordered to pay a €1,500 fine.)

“My wife also asked me, with no irony at all, whether black people were exempted from paying in public transport, when she saw the extent of the fraud taking place in ethnic enclaves.

“Every day, in greater Paris, we stumble upon people we met in Africa. They have just arrived on the back of a one-month tourist visa, and they are determined to stay permanently. I regularly get calls from Africa, telling me that Youssouf, Sissoko, or Yaya will test his luck by handing $4,500 dollars under the table for a visa, and that I will probably see him soon somewhere in the suburbs of Paris. I always do.

“By the way, my African friends who have an education or a job stay at home. The ones we see coming here are cleaning ladies, ‘musicians’, soon-to-be ‘single mothers’, so-called ‘businessmen’ who will end up selling peanuts on the pavement…”

Personal history and political analysis are interweaved in Alibekov’s decision to emigrate.

“Because I live in the Paris area, I have been in constant contact with immigrants. Since the age of twelve, I have been racially insulted fifteen times (‘filthy white’, ‘little Frenchy’, ‘little piggy’.). I was assaulted several times (always by five or seven to one).”

Almost off-handedly, while discussing with a reader in the comment section of his blog, he mentions that “the number of girls [he knew] during his studies who were gang-raped by black youths, is staggering”.

“Despite the evidence of the political disaster since the mid-seventies” he thinks, “dissidents will never be tolerated within the mainstream media. The only possible action is a form of semi-underground lobbying. I recently held a discussion with some friends and colleagues to test their limits. I realise that the law of silence still prevails. To my great astonishment, the psychological barrier is still there. Maybe people just fear being branded as Nazis if they agree with you.”

“The way things are going, whether in the workplace or because of the schizophrenia of the society at large, any country will be better than this one. My university friends who emigrated to the United States or Canada regularly encourage me to join their dream where work is rewarded, and civic virtue is promoted. France is lost. The only future it has in stock for our generation of graduates is spelled in four letters: S-M-I-C [the French acronym for the minimum wage].”

Oh, and by the way: Abiba, the “single mother” from Cameroon, has just disappeared into the woodwork. Nothing to worry about: her one-month tourist visa has now expired. She has only gone into stealth mode.


Zenster said...

I am trying hard to figure out what opportunity these immigrants might represent for our country.

This is the ultimate question, the answer to which can only be an indictment against France's Socialist lunatics. The delusion that any of these layabout immigrants will further the grandeur of (once) glorious French culture is something that defies the imagination.

The parable springs to mind of what happens when you stir a tiny bit of sh!t into ice cream. What you end up with can no longer be called ice cream no matter how small the amount if sh!t you have stirred into it.

French government officials have been allowed to sell this contaminated dross to the indigenous French people for decades and no one has risen to challenge the fact that these budding social engineers commit the fraud of calling it "ice cream".

Soon enough, someone will take up Madame Lafarge's knitting, for this state of affairs cannot continue without some exceptional form of protest. The longer it is deferred, the more hideous of a form it will take.

rickl said...

Well, Alibekov is welcome here as long as he doesn't vote for liberal candidates.

That's a common problem in the United States. People flee states where liberals have run them into the ground, only to repeat their voting patterns in their new homes. Thus the cancer continues to spread.

Anonymous said...

I can't take Alibekov seriously when he marries a black Muslim and then cries that all of France is becoming black Muslim.

noam burde said...

france is not becoming black muslim.
it's becoming arab muslim(mainly marocan, algerian), but also generaly muslim(pakistan, iraq, etc..).

Anonymous said...

France isn't lost. You can easily ban the employment of non-ethnic French and the welfare given to non-ethnic French, combined with the stripping of the citizenship of these people. You don't do it because France was lost in 1789.

Tim Johnston said...

rickl is right - a lot of Europeans are jumping ship because of their own failed idiotic policies and then seem determined to ruin their new countries too. I, for one, will not be making that mistake in my new country.

Svartwulf said...

Sadly, if this man does come to America, he will find little different. Some areas are being terraformed into Islam, while others are being turned into Mexico. The day we gave up our pride as Europeans is the day we signed out deaths. Now we have fight for our lives and bring back that pride.

Such is the doom of our age.

Robert said...

Does anyone seriously believe that France would fast be becoming a non-European country if it had not been "liberated" by Stalin's allies?

goethechosemercy said...

I do not think Muslims should be allowed to emigrate to the West. If they cannot improve the communities in which their ancestors have lived, what makes you think they have anything constructive to offer?
I've also noticed that France does not REQUIRE anything of immigrants. There are no lines to toe, no demands made.
They are not required to know French.
Not required to take five years of Latin in school.
Polygamy has not been outlawed.
There are no laws on the books that preserve the structure of the society and culture.
If this is a model for immigration policies worldwide, then the world is going to go backward.

Zenster said...

Robert: Does anyone seriously believe that France would fast be becoming a non-European country if it had not been "liberated" by Stalin's allies?

Does anyone seriously believe that France would even exist at all if it had not been "liberated" from the Nazis?

That is, instead of being looted of all its art treasures and turned into a Vichy clone of Nazi Germany.

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left said...

Yet more proof that the French really are "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

Of course, what are we? If Alibekov does come to the United States, I hope someone warns him that he should NOT go to live in "Mexifornia" or downtown in New York City right next
to the Cordoba House Mosque/ Mahometan Victory Monument.

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left said...

Just so, Zenster! If WE had not liberated France from the Nazis, all the French would now be speaking GERMAN.

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left said...

Tim Johnston wrote: "...a lot of Europeans are jumping ship because of their own failed idiotic policies and then seem determined to ruin their new countries too."

Indeed, we see this here in New England: the imbecile voters who voted for the traitor politicians who have turned Massachusetts (where the American Revolution began!) into a Marxist state eventually realize just how screwed up "Tax-achusetts" really is. They then move here to the free state of New Hampshire and vote for Commie politicians to slowly destroy this state.

"I, for one, will not be making that mistake in my new country."

Really?? I am suspicious. Did you move to the U.S.? Do you know the history of the Revolution? The political ideas and historical forces that brought it about? Do you understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? What do you think about the 2nd Amendment??

Sadly, most people cannot shake off their ideologocal shackles.

Svartwulf said...

@OotlfPl If WE had not liberated France from the Nazis, all the French would now be speaking GERMAN.

Of course, we now find ourselves asking what may be the ultimate question: Which is preferable, the world speaking German, or the world speaking the words of the Prophet Mohammed...

Tim Johnston said...


Firstly, my people - the Scots-Irish - contributed in no small way to the founding of the American state. We even fought our own in 1798 (but didn't win).

And, no, I moved to Canada. But, yes is the answer to the other questions, and to the last: Yes, I believe in the right to bear arms. And I do.

Sean O'Brian said...

France is guilty of the same error as Stalin's allies (the Stallies?) which is in thinking that a grand experiment in Enlightenment philosophy can substitute for a real country. It can't. A country is a large group of similar people living together in the same place.

If the people of a country accept that they live in a propositional nation based around abstractions how then can they object to being abstracted out of existence and physically replaced with others who can, like anyone, recite the same oaths and quote the same documents as them?

“Throw our paper platforms, preambles and resolutions, guaranties and constitutions, in the fire, and we should be none the worse off, provided we retained our institutions –and the necessities that begot, and have, so far, continued them.”

--George Fitzhugh

Anonymous said...

Ha, I understand the American revolution, the Constitution and the good thing of the right to bear arms. That's one of the only benefits that moving to America over Europe gives you.

Anyway, the US Constitution is part of the progressive problem, if you ask me. Just like the French revolution ideals. I find it amusing that the question one asks of an immigrant are these since doing this is just perpetuating the stupidity of the propositional nation.

Svartwulf said...

RV, are we then to take it that you disagree with the US Constitution and it's form of government?

What type of Government would you then suggest?

Anonymous said...

NorseAlchemist, I don't have a problem with a republic. I have a problem with a republic based on Enlightenment ideas. The way I see it, a constitutional republic or a constitutional monarchy are the only two good forms of government. But as I said, not based on Enlightenment ideas.

Svartwulf said...

But RV, it is enlightenment ideals that have lead to the creation of the constitutional republics and monarchies. Indeed, even the ancient Roman and Greek republics were based upon ideals that gave birth to the enlightenment

Anonymous said...

Sean O'Brian :

"If the people of a country accept that they live in a propositional nation based around abstractions how then can they object to being abstracted out of existence and physically replaced with others who can, like anyone, recite the same oaths and quote the same documents as them?"

A very good question, which should give food for thought to both the French and the Americans.

Anonymous said...

The Roman republic had nothing to do with Enlightenment ideals. We are being killed by those ideals, in particular universalism, the quest for equality, individualism. These three are the causes of the malaise of the West.

Svartwulf said...

RV, while universalism does cause problems, taken properly it can have benefits. As for Individualism and the Quest for Equality, those are fundamental ideas that have existed in European culture since the beginnings of our civilizations.

It is true we need to regain our tribal identities and pride to balance universalism.

But if we get rid of the ideas of Equality and Individualism, all we will have achieved is a society of conformists and social hierarchies based on force. We will live in nations that look like China, pre-colonial India, and many other Eastern countries. They will not be of the West. It is only in empowering the Individual that we will have the power to save ourselves, and it is only by measures of Equality, combined with meritocracy, that will grant us the ability to achieve that individuality.

And I would recommend looking into the history of the Enlightenment, which was brought about by learned people who looked back to the Greek and Roman philosophies as a way to find a better life from the hierarchical, dogmatic, conformist Christian doctrine that had dominated Europe for a thousand years.

Tim Johnston said...

what you say is true, NorseAlchemist. Europeans were far more egalitarian than our Near Eastern cousins, and collective decision making was the norm. There was no such sacredness surrounding royalty and leadership as was found in Near East either, meaning that leaders had to prove themselves worthy.
Enlightenment ideas are worthy, and not all subsequent ideas are 'Enlightenment values' simply because they were made possible by it.
Some say multiculturalism has its roots therein, but this is false reasoning. In fact, individualism and the modern Republic hold citizenship in such high regard (in theory) that it should not be conferred upon all comers as it is today. Citizenship is our most prized possession, and when we learn to respect it, we will see far less of the stories such as the above article.

Elan-tima said...

France is lost....?

We WE Zoot Zoot.

Long live LIBERTY(anarchy), EGALITY(barbarity), FRATERNITY(insanity)!

(please repeat this in a condescending bombastic French accent--for a good laugh)

We have many Brits arriving in "British Columbia" Canada from the Island cross the pond. Oh if they had listened to that evil Mosley fellow and his rabble long ago then we left coasters would be less British and more Chinese.

Svartwulf said...

I don't know about anyone else here, but I rather like being an insane, barbarian anarchist. I like being free. I like not having to power and scrap before some idiot that thinks he can call himself my master before I prove them wrong. I like living in brotherhood with men and women who wish to do the same.

There is nothing wrong with the ideas of Liberty, Egality, and Fraternity. Frankly, I think they're pretty darn good. And I believe that many here that are proposing we turn away from them, to fight an enemy that also hates those ideas, are being foolish and unrealistic. You would be removing the very reason to fight Islam and living under a system that would be almost as bad. I also think that such people feel they would be the ones in power, when the simple fact of the matter is that you would end up being the slaves of the very people you complain are ruining this world already. You wouldn't have the power, you'd only loose the freedom you have to protest in places like this.

Think about how much you gain by being free, equal, and in brotherhood with your fellows. Think about how much you'd loose if you didn't have those things, if you were on the losing side of a hierarchical, class-based, hateful society. Yes, the USSR and the Nazis could stop Islam, but what if you were the "Jew"?

Ben Franklin said it best. "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither, nor shall they have either."

Elan-tima said...


Didn't the USSR offer Liberty from exploitation from the bourgeois, Egality because noone owned anthing but shared everything, and Fraternity as a comrade in the revolution?

Didn't the Nazi's offer Liberty from the inferiority of degenerate races, Egality in the racial purity, and Fraternity in the super races thousand year reign?

All Utopic ideas are a small amount of sand in the fist of dreamers, the more they squeeze to hold onto it the quicker it falls through their fingers. Another Utopian facade is about to fall.

Svartwulf said...

Elan, the examples you give fall under the category of Blatant Lies. Why, Islam offers Peace, should we then not seek peace, simply because a totalitarian ideology decides to use the term outside its original context?

I'm not talking about utopia, I'm talking about the best working system for people getting along while still having some freedoms. But hey, you wanna go live in a world that doesn't have those ideals, then by all means go ahead. But I suggest you look at the modern Islamic nations, the USSR at the height of its power, and Communist China.

Still wanna live in that?

Tim Johnston said...


why do you put British Columbia in inverted commas? That's what it's called.

I've met British ex-pats throughout the world, and most of them left because they say that Britain is just not the place they remember.

EscapeVelocity said...

I'm not talking about utopia, I'm talking about the best working system for people getting along while still having some freedoms. --- NorseAlchemist

You talking about Christianity?

Anonymous said...

Norse Alchemist, I think you are on to something in regards to accepting and coming to terms with our race's rather liberal history. It's true that we've taken an extreme route when it comes to individualism/egalitarianism/universalism, and we need to scale back. But perhaps there is a way to keep many of the Enlightenment intellectual developments that have made our lives less grim, while at the same time preserving our identity and civilization. What do you all think? Can a middle ground be obtained?

At any rate, I can't help but wonder that we may very well need to find that balance in order to reach out to more Westerners. Telling them that they all need to think like Third Worlders would be a bit too much to swallow, even though some tribalist thinking is sorely needed.

Anonymous said...

There's no magic formula. Some balance is in order.

Push too far down the line of liberty and equality, and suddenly you find yourself swamped with foreigners who will use your principles against you.

Let go of liberty and equality, and you invite a totalitarian regime to rule your life.

Another remark : there is no ideal political regime for all people on earth, as we are currently finding out to our dismay (think Iraq or Afghanistan if you are American, Eurabia if you are European, South Africa if you are a white South African).

Russians need and want an authoritarian regime. They had the Tsars, they had Communism, they have Putin. It's their culture, it's their history.

Ditto the Chinese, in a different way, because their culture is different.

The Christian West is built on freedom. It's our culture, it's our history. No people is a blank sheet for intellectuals to impose them what they think best.

But freedom, and equality, have to be defended.

Basically, freedom, equality and fraternity can only happen between similar people sharing a common history, values, mores and beliefs.

This was once obvious. We forgot about it because of television, cheap air travel, the Internet and American mores permeating the remotest corners of the earth.

Only a century ago, nobody in his right mind, within the West, would have thought for a second that liberty and equality would apply to an illiterate African Muslim believing in witchcraft, plucked out of Senegal, and parachuted in France or America (let alone millions of them).

It was so obvious that it needed no explaining. We must reclaim some of our ancestors' wisdom we have lost.

Anonymous said...

Robert, actually a lot of people who weren't cheering for idiotic ideas saw where this is heading(just like there are poems predicting the two great wars, which to anybody with some foresight were quite inevitable - at least the second one should have been). There is quite a bunch of literature about it. And you can't have equality without it being equally applied. Then it's not equality. And hey, if you want to compete with third worlders with an arm tied behind your back, suit yourself. I'm not going to partake in that one.

European people were a lot more free in the 'totalitarian' regimes of our kings and princesses. Actually, if the founding fathers of America knew how the US would be now, they wouldn't have never started the revolution to begin with. The only Europeans who were less free than now in the last 500 years probably were the ones living under communism - yet another universal egalitarian utopia.

Svartwulf said...

EV, so help me before my Gods, you do not want to start that again!

AgentChameleon and RobertBarchenoir, you have hit the nail right on the head. There have been works on this site which talk about how a stronger tribal identity among Europeans would help prevent the take over and lost of European civilization. There is a need for balance. Traditionally in American Politics, we accomplished this with our two parties, but as those have become radicalized at both ends, we lost control.

Being a bit of a historian, I can say that those groups who embraced these ideals we've discussed had a few things in common. The had strong tribal identities: Greek, Roman, Germanic (including the Norse), and Celtic. They all believed in individual liberty, equality (balanced by meritocracy), and universalism (in the form of always seeking to learn new things from other cultures while not giving up their own), and one final thing they all had in common: They were religiously Polytheistic. They were pagan peoples.

Why is this important? It is an example to the people, that diverse individuals, who don't always get along, can still live together without conforming to another. Christianity, like Islam, demands conformity. The problem being that no one has quite figured out the "right path". This is not a problem in Polytheistic religions. Each man and woman may follow the path right for them, and together with everyone else, creates a larger path that benefits everyone.

Now, it is true that Modern Christianity, and to a certain extent older Christianity, did embrace the ideas of Freedom, Equality, and Universalism. Arguably, Christian was more universal in that it didn't recognized tribal differences or things like that as it sought to "save everyone" irregardless of merit. Here in we see the seeds of these ideas taken too far, where the very checks that balanced the equation were labeled sins. Example; the humility to learn new things was kept, but the Pride in your own previous ideas was deemed a sin (Pride is a sin, etc). The reason this didn't completely come through until our own time is that Christianity absorbed much of the Pagan cultures that it took over, rather than destroying them as Islam would. So while the Pagan Gods were not worshiped, their culture and teachings still remained. But they became too closely tied to Christianity, and when Christianity began to fall in the face of Nihilism, Science, Atheism, and other "modern" forces, it took much of that Germanic/Romantic/Hellenistic values with it.

This is why I am Asatru. It is the rebuilding of that ancient Germanic/Celtic polytheistic religion. The Gods didn't die, and it provides the strong Tribal identity needed to allow Liberty, Egalitarianism, and Universalism, without letting us be destroyed. I know it isn't for everyone, and EV will no doubt be screaming I'm lying as soon as this is posted, but that is what several years of research, much of it personally painful, has led me too.

Elan-tima said...

Tim J,

I put the marks around British Columbia as a inside joke to all those who've been to BC and know the name is as truthfull as the name "Democratic Republic of Congo". The hint I gave was at the end when I said--Chinese. In Vancouver BC every year they have a fireworks contest with China almost always participating. When the Chinese national anthem is broadcast more than half of the audience stands up. Are they all tourists from China? Not likely. I can walk into stores in Vancouver and show you statues and pictures of Mao made up like shrines. And don't get me started on whats up in Surrey BC.

I mocked the Brits heading over here because not surprisingly all the cultural enrichers they want to escape are right behind them.
I live in a smallish town on Vancouver Island and even here the Jihad jivers are beginning to appear in growing frequency.

I've got my own three ideals to live up to outside the Utopian mud.

Civility (Greco-Roman model) Responsibility (Prussianesque model) Anonymity (you keep your nose out of my face and I'll keep my nose out of yours model)

Tim Johnston said...


I live in BC, I know exactly what you mean. In surrey the motto is, "the future lives here", inevitably pasted over a photograph of some Sikh cultural event - the irony being that, given the bizarre costumes, it's the distant past that lives here.

If I see one more job ad that lists 'must speak Punjabi' as a requirement, I'm going to punch someone.

The sad fact is that while BC is not as bad as Ontario, it could still be renamed 'PC'.

Anonymous said...

Universalism has nothing to do with learning about other cultures. lol

Svartwulf said...

Universalism, as i understand it, is the recognition that we are all humans and that all our cultures have equal value in seeking a universal truth. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the place where my comment comes from.

EscapeVelocity said...

It is an example to the people, that diverse individuals, who don't always get along, can still live together without conforming to another. --- NorseAlchemist

This is of course poppycock.

The only reason that they ever got along is because they didnt rub up against each other territorilly. As soon as they did, they would fight brutally for subjugation or dispatching of "the Other."

Sparse population in lots of space and good land....leads to peace with your neighbors.

Svartwulf said...

EV, with that comment I was speaking as to inside the civilization itself. Of course there were wars between different tribal groups. That's normal and good. We Polytheists have Gods of War for a reason. But we also have Gods of Knowledge, know when to go to war and when to make peace.

Anonymous said...

Norse Alchemist, I am a Christian, and yet I find the Asatru faith very appealing, in particular, the Asatru Folk Assembly, which seems to have found a way to promote European identity without it turning into something ugly. I admire and respect that, and while I feel that I will forever belong to Christ, I will view the practitioners of Asatru, particularly the Folkish variants, as allies. Even though I'm part of a universal religion, I share the Asatru community's desire to preserve the people of Europe.

Anonymous said...

NA, I don't know how people can say what you just did with a straight face. The whole of Africa combined right now is far more worthless than the Roman Empire was 15 centuries ago. Learning from others is far from considering them equal. Same with the universal human thing - good luck at winning anything while supporting that. If you really believe what you said, then Somali Muslims taking over cities in Europe, for example, shouldn't be a problem since they're equal as humans and as cultures.

Zenster said...

EscapeVelocity: You talking about Christianity?

Give it a rest, will you? Christianity brought Europe its own share of woes. To be sure, nothing like Islam has foisted upon the world but some genuine suffering as well. Just ask the Jews.

With his usual profundity, Churchill noted this very fact in "The River War":

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property (either as a child, a wife, or a concubine) must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science (the science against which it had vainly struggled) the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." [emphasis added]

In some respects, Christianity has survived in spite of itself and NorseAlchemist nails this by noting:

Example; the humility to learn new things was kept, but the Pride in your own previous ideas was deemed a sin (Pride is a sin, etc).

This denial of ego and individual worth laid the doctrinal foundations for what has amounted to suicidal altruism in Christianity. The notionally laudable ideal of universal redemption has evolved into a belief in cultural relativism that is seeing Europe left awash in the sort of babarians which were specifically ejected in earlier times so that European nations could attain their cultural heights.

rebelliousvanilla, it looks as if you are missing NorseAlchemist's point. The notion of equality can only be applied to those who properly respect it. Imported Muslims and other barbaric cretins have no concept of or respect for equality and, therefore, have no right to demand such a thing from the cultures that practice it.

Please stop attempting to broadbrush arguments in ways which deprive them of their original intent. NorseAlchemist can correct me if I am wrong but it seems that you are really doing this discussion a disfavor by throwing it off track.

Anonymous said...

Zenster, then people and cultures aren't equal. lol. Actually, the inequality of human groups is so glaring that only a retard would be able to believe that we're equal.

And even if everybody accepted the universal egalitarian ideology, we would still be facing a demise as a people. The biggest fallacy of our culture is that it is built on faulty premises and by extension everything about it is fake. European/Western culture is in decline since the early 18th century. Just like we survived before being poor Christians, we survived until recently by being poor humanists.

Svartwulf said...

Agent Chameleon, it is truly a pleasure to meet a person such as yourself. We may not agree on religion, but we can still be allies. I rag on Christianity, but I feel you have found the true Ideal of Christ. I am happy to fight by your side.

Zenster, you have correctly guessed my point.

RebelliousVanilla, I don't feel that I am retarded, but perhaps I have failed to fully explain my point. I believe that all human beings are of equal value. I can see where, with your arguments that say, Africans are inferior culturally, you disagree with me.

Then permit me to explain it in the way I understand it from my religion of Asatru. All life is equally sacred, but that doesn't mean I can't kill it if it threatens me. All people are equal, and I have an equal right to defend myself, should others try to harm me or my kin. But simply because my people are more philosophically and technologically advanced doesn't make lesser developed people any less worthy as human beings. Perhaps it is my Heathen ways that permit me to exist in this contradiction, I couldn't really tell you.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: … then people and cultures aren't equal.

Well, duh! Thank you for that BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious).

How is it that you continue to miss the point? The universal egalitarian ideology only works among those who subscribe to it. You can no more apply it to some post-cannibal African cultures than you can an electoral college.

The biggest fallacy of our culture is that it is built on faulty premises and by extension everything about it is fake.

Pure horseradish. No culture so poorly grounded could possibly achieve what Western civilization has done. Without a doubt the original tenets that contributed to these great strides have been crippled and malformed but that does not mean the harm cannot be undone.

Admittedly, to undo that harm is going to take some major grief but it is nothing that the Politically Correct Multiculturalists have not been begging for these past few decades.

Anonymous said...

What makes human beings equally valuable? Out of curiosity. We share most of our DNA with monkeys and yet we don't find them our equals. By the way, I'm not trying to make black people seem not human, I'm just curious. And it can't be because we can reproduce with one another since lions and tigers can have offsprings and they're not the same thing.

I understand why a Christian would say that life is equally valuable or a blank state theorist. If I drive a train and I have to choose a path - on one being tied down Thomas Edison and on the other some Australian aborigine, who should I save? Since they're equally valuable.

Anonymous said...

Zenster, I'm not referring to the whole European civilization, but to the last couple of centuries - since around 1700-1750. That's when the decline started.

Tim Johnston said...

well, believing in equality and believing all cultures are equal is not the same thing at all. In fact, that's one of the fallacies that is leading to the downfall of Western civilisation. Either individuals are equal - in some sense - or cultures or nations are equal, but not both.

(Norse, having followed your blog I'm sure you don't believe all cultures have equal merit)

Svartwulf said...

Tim, you are correct, I don't consider all cultures of equal merit, nor do I consider individual people of equal merit. Where I argue that people are of equal value is in their "spiritual energy". Watch the Matrix, each human being produces X amount of energy. It is the same on the Spritual level. That is where I consider people to be equal. It's cold, but all things considered, on base units of energy, most people are equal. Thus, all people are equal, it is our individual deeds that set us apart.

If each person consider themselves the best, and their own culture the best, then since we cannot prove before everyone in the world that they are superior (an impossible thing) then for the sake of getting along we all say "we are equal" so that we can function, rather than constantly fighting to prove who is the best.

Rebelliousvanilla, I think you have gotten the impression I am a Christian. This is not so, as I have stated very often I and a Norse Heathen Polytheist. We are ideologically the opposite of Christianity and Islam. That said, I am still fairly spiritual, and that is the driving force behind my humans are equal, as explained above. I just come at it from a rather more primal and ruthless angle than a Christian.

Cyrus said...

NorseAlchemist: I believe your one-size-fits-all argument from above would be remedied by the proliferation of Christian denominations, or within Catholicism the veneration of different saints (correct me if I'm wrong - I'm no Catholic).

Tim and Elan-tima: if the lower mainland is that unbearable, move to greater BC, or heaven forbid, Alberta or Saskatchewan! ;)

Anonymous said...

I don't think you're a Christian, but your belief that all humans are equal is a Christian belief. Why should we extend our universalism only to humans? Why shouldn't we include monkeys, bugs and all the other carbon life forms? Or at least all the mammals? Since you don't use genetic distance as an argument and it's impossible to do so, since that goes against what you support, why should we stop at what we define as humans? Why not have a mammals universal declaration of rights?

People don't produce the same amount of energy. And movie analogies are hardly arguments. Also, you don't have to prove to others that you're the best. I don't feel an urge to go about and fight non-Europeans. And supremacy that leads to wiping out other people and genocide is the opposite of universalism. I'm not advocating the opposite.

Svartwulf said...

Cyrus, you do have a point. However, in the instance of the Catholic Saints, they act as messengers to the Christian God that specialize for certain people. With the various denominations, yes there are many points of view. The difference, though, is that while there are many separate groups, they each claim to have "The One True Path." Thus it has not remedied the problem, but rather exacerbated it, because now they fight over the correct path and proclaim all others to be "false", rather than working in harmony.

The difference with Polytheism is that while there are many separate paths, they do not claim that the others are "false" paths.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: … I'm not referring to the whole European civilization, but to the last couple of centuries - since around 1700-1750. That's when the decline started.

Then please say so by properly qualifying your positions and stop making such blanket statements. It really throws the discussion off course.

Svartwulf said...

RV, what you end up describing by taking equality even further is actually the argument used by many Buddhists. There is indeed some merit to it, and the concept can actually be found in the pre-Christian world view that all life is sacred. I have explained this above.

As for people not having to prove their superiority, I fear that now it is you who are being the idealist. Look around you. Islam wishes to prove it is superior. Christianity does. Communism does. Capitalism does too. Through out history, ideologies and peoples constantly try to prove they are superior or are made slave/destroyed by ones that are working to prove they in turn are superior.

You might not want to prove it, but none the less, without the idea of equality, you would have to, or else you end up with nothing.

Anonymous said...

lol, with you considering giving all mammals rights, I'm leaving this debate. :P

What you're saying sounds fairly similar to better living on your knees than dying on your feet. OMG, conflict is bad and evil.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I forgot something. The myth of equality is sustained simply by paying tribute, since this is what pretty much welfare and transfers from Europeans to non-Europeans are. If my ancestors thought like you do, my country wouldn't exist. lol

Svartwulf said...

RV, I don't know about anyone else, but nothing I've said has ever been along the lines of living on your knees rather than dying on your feet. If anything, I advocate dying on ones feet. I'm more than happy to do so, as were my people. But the simple fact that I'd rather live a mostly peaceful life at this point rather than waging a never ending war against everyone else to prove they aren't better than me doesn't mean I'm less of a fan of violent solutions to problems. When it comes to Islam, or any other group that seeks to destroy my people, I'm a strong believer in "Overkill is Underrated."

Equality is used when like minded people come together and figure it is better to live in freedom, rather than war.

Tim Johnston said...

Cyrus - point taken :)

although I have to say, BC has done something right, there are few Moslems here compared to Ontario. I may hold off buying the ticket to Calgary for a while yet!

RV, as soon as mammals learn to produce a universal declaration of their rights, I'll recognise it! monkeys on typewriters springs to mind...

And once again, it must be stressed that the concept of equality does not include having a claim over others' rights. How does my recognising you as an equal bestow an obligation on me to let you live in my house and share my food with you?

The concept of "equality" as a redistributive system is the myth the multicultists are peddling.

The truest believers in the Enlightenment concept of Equality are those who accept that people will never have equal wealth, strength or ability, but only have the same rules and laws applied to them. It is a legalistic concept that ought to have no bearing beyond that.

Similarly, it does not bestow any sort of status on those living in different parts of the world. My putative fellow-humanness with a cannibal living in the Congo means only that our actions ought to be judged by the same standards, not that he has a right to live in the same country as me and vice versa.

The imposition of so-called 'positive rights' are alien to equality, and are in conflict with it.

EscapeVelocity said...

Us Christians will never give it a rest.

We continue to gain converts in Asia, particularly China and India, Maylasia, Indonesia.

Christianity as in its Classically Liberal form is the answer to "striking the right balance."

Anonymous said...

Tim, it's called ideological development. It's fairly simple to see how the classical liberalism gave birth to the social one. Also, rights are socially constructed. Unless you're in a sovereign nation in which rights are enforced through the rule of law, you have no rights.

Oh, and law has nothing to do with ideology. It's just like saying that universalism and equality never got people into wars - well, except the US into WW1 due to Wilson's silliness or into Yugoslavia and quite a bit of other places.

NA, the US is on a never ending war to prove it is superior and that universalism, equality and democracy is the way to do things. All the wars in which the US was in the 20th century had this purpose. It's going to be sort of ironic when the US will fall apart due to the things it wanted to fight outside of it. And this will happen when all the bribes to the different people who are inside it will stop coming or when whites will actually seek their own interest. I don't see Japan going into wars and all that or trying to prove its superiority.

Svartwulf said...

Um, might wanna check your history book again. It is true that the US has entered wars in the 20th cen to prove its ways were better. This however is because of other forces that were both working to prove their own Superiority; Fascism (Nazis), Communism, Islam, and Imperial Japan. It has always been reactionary with the US.

You say you don't see Japan going to war to prove it superiority. That is simply because Japan tried it in the years leading up to WWII. The fact is that the US smacked them down so hard it crushed that drive (indeed there is work that prove Japanese men to this day have lost much of their masculinity due to just how bad a beat down it was) and were prevented from building up a military again. The Japanese have merely switched proving themselves technologically superior, but do not be fooled. National Japanese still believe to this day that they are a racially superior group. They just can't fight like the rest of us can.

Anonymous said...

You just proved yourself wrong since you claimed that if you think you're superior you're going to declare war on everybody and all that to prove it. Make up your mind. Also, it's quite hilarious. So if you support universalism and equality, you're supposed to destroy all other competing ideologies like the US is trying to do, but somehow believing in equality will bring you peace. You're not making any sense.

And German men and by extension white men are just as wimpy as Japanese men, sadly. At least Japanese men didn't allow their country to be invaded.

I wasn't really referring to WW2, which wouldn't have even happened if the US wouldn't have botched WW1.

Zenster said...

NorseAlchemist: Islam wishes to prove it is superior. Christianity does. Communism does. Capitalism does too.

Capitalism is an amoral tool. You may as well say that a gun or truck wishes to prove it is superior. The other ideologies you cite are another matter entirely, but please do not lump Capitalism in with them.

EscapeVelocity: Us Christians will never give it a rest.

Trust me, you do Christianity a major disservice by flogging it all of the time. As a rule, the most vocal Christians I have ever met always proved to be the worst followers of Christ.

Tim Johnston: The truest believers in the Enlightenment concept of Equality are those who accept that people will never have equal wealth, strength or ability, but only have the same rules and laws applied to them.

Le bingo! All men are not created equal. Some are born halt and lame, others are retarded. Yet, all must be equal, in the eyes of the law. That is where universal equality begins and ends.

rebelliousvanilla: And German men and by extension white men are just as wimpy as Japanese men, sadly. At least Japanese men didn't allow their country to be invaded.

You are making a fundamental category error by confusing this bunch of metrosexual pansies that currently lead much of the Western world with actual men.

Svartwulf said...

rebelliousvanilla, your constant blanket statements make it hard to have a rational discussion. My saying that competing ideologies and people will attempt to show themselves superior is because of a great deal of historical and philosophical evidence. It is survival of the fittest, if you will.

Also, your assessment that all white men are wimpy is rather horrifying. I don't know what kind of men you've been around, and while I will agree that men are not Manly like they used to be, that doesn't mean they're all wimps. Remove the sexist restrictions placed on them, and you will see the return of more Manly Men.

Zenster, you're correct that Capitalism is a amoral, but it is not a tool. It is indeed an ideology. To say that capitalism is no different from a gun or a truck is to belittle it.

Zenster said...

NorseAlchemist: Zenster, you're correct that Capitalism is a amoral, but it is not a tool. It is indeed an ideology. To say that capitalism is no different from a gun or a truck is to belittle it.

Fear not, we're in violent agreement here. I did not say that "capitalism is no different from a gun or a truck". Check my words.

Capitalism shows its superiority by providing a better quality of life to its practitioners. It does not have to aggressively impose itself (although it can) but instead - if allowed - will supplant inferior socioeconomic systems simply through voluntary adoption. Communist China is a case in point despite them diluting it through their command economy, much as America has a mixed Socialist-Capitalist economy as well.

Incidentally, there is a resurgence of Manly Men that now carry the label of Retrosexuals.

Zenster said...

NorseAlchemist: Remove the sexist restrictions placed on them, and you will see the return of more Manly Men.

Much like people get the government that they deserve, modern women are getting the men they have asked for.

Whenever women complain to me about what a bunch of clods most men are, I simply remind them that there wouldn't be such a big supply of jerks if there wasn't such a huge demand for them.

Currently, men are being punished for being men and acting in accordance with their masculine nature. No whimpy behavior = No reproductive opportunities. How much more effed up can anyone expect them to be? Especially when women continue to throw themselves at these beefcake morons.

It is much akin to how modern women are expected to have the figure of a ten year-old even into their childbearing years.

Due to societal structure, women control a large portion of the mating game. It is largely their warped demands upon men that have created this schizoid situation and it will be up to them to get a grip and stop rewarding the jerks and macho meatheads with their affection.

So long as women continue showering their affection on these "exciting" bad boys, they will continue to get the crap beaten out of them and guys will continue to disguise their own true natures in an effort to reproduce.

Don't get me started on this topic as it can spin out of control in a heartbeat.

EscapeVelocity said...

I never claimed to be the greatest Christian that ever lived.

However, in this atmosphere, agressive defense of Christianity is necessary. You should know that Zenster, because it aint just Christianity that is needing defending these days with regards to Western Civilization.

Svartwulf said...

EV, there's aggressive defense and then there is shoving it down people's throats.

You've been crossed over into the latter for as long as I've know you.

Zenster said...

EscapeVelocity: However, in this atmosphere, agressive defense of Christianity is necessary. You should know that Zenster, because it aint just Christianity that is needing defending these days with regards to Western Civilization.

In case it has eluded you, I have pushed a lot of electrons through the wires supporting that exact subject.

Agressive is one thing. Clubbing people over the head with it all of the time is another. I refer you to NorseAlchemist's preceeding comment.

EscapeVelocity said...

Here is your argument.

We are free to criticize Christianity to our hearts content.

And we are tired of you "flogging" Christianity here, please shut up.

I wont stop defending Christianity, as long as it is under assault.

And let's face it. The assault on Christianity isnt ending any time soon.

You are free to criticize. I am free to counter.


Svartwulf said...

EV, no one here is saying you can't counter. What we're complaining about is you raising the Cross high, Screaming in the Name of Jesus that Christianity is the only thing that's good in this world and the only thing that can "Save Humanity" and generally being someone who would fit into the Crusades more than a rational discussion. There have been people on here who have said Christianity has something to offer, and I myself feel that as long as Christians and Christianity are willing to work with other people and belief systems in order to halt Islam, that they are more than welcome.

But that doesn't mean Christianity can just take over, like you advocate time and again. The more you force your Christ on us, the more we will lash against it, just as we do against the Prophet Mohamed.

Learn to live with others, and realize that as long as your belief is strong, you don't have to worry about what others say. We aren't advocating you take another religion, we aren't forcing you to not be a Christian, but we will comment on its flaws, just like everything else. If you faith isn't strong enough to stand up to that criticism, then perhaps you should seek people more in line with your own thought, rather than attempting to make others believe as you do.

EscapeVelocity said...

Onward Christian Soldiers

When Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt met in 1941 on the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to agree the Atlantic Charter, a church service was held for which Prime Minister Churchill chose the hymns. He chose "Onward, Christian Soldiers" and afterwards made a radio broadcast explaining this choice:[6]

We sang "Onward, Christian Soldiers" indeed, and I felt that this was no vain presumption, but that we had the right to feel that we serving a cause for the sake of which a trumpet has sounded from on high. When I looked upon that densely packed congregation of fighting men of the same language, of the same faith, of the same fundamental laws, of the same ideals ... it swept across me that here was the only hope, but also the sure hope, of saving the world from measureless degradation.

—Winston Churchill

Is Islam Really the Second-Fastest Growing Religion?

The religious makeup of the world is changing, but the media’s focus on the West is causing many to be blind to Islam’s losing of ground in the third world.


EscapeVelocity said...


I can take criticism all day long, as you well know.

It is you who cannot stand counter criticism. Nor can you take challenges to your belief system.

You take my challenges to them to be threats against your being.

What you propose is dhimmitude for Christians, that is the world you wish to create. Ive heard it time and again, from the likes of kristik borger recently on this very site.

That Christianity is to be cordon saintaired out of the public square, and informing democracy, legislation, etc.

So I really dont care that you think my style is counter productive. We're here, we're Christian and we arent going to cower before other men.

You fear a robust Christianity....and you lash out at those who advocate for it.

Well, dont be surprised when you receive blowback, is all I can say.

Get over it.

Zenster said...

EscapeVelocity: Here is your argument.

Since you seem to quote me, all I can say is please get your facts straight. You do not do this and, knowingly or not, end up coming across like a drama queen.

Again, you are not doing yourself any favors. My position on Christianity is a matter of longstanding record at this site and I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of it.

Svartwulf said...

EV, I can take a challenge to my belief system. I think I have proven that often enough.

I haven't said that Christianity must be kept out of the public square. What I have said is that it cannot be allowed to Dominate the public square.

I applaud your bravery, though I feel you are being misguided.

I do not fear a robust Christianity. I would argue I fear nothing, but let us say I do fear something. That something would be a return to the Christianity that saw my culture and my people slaughtered, witches hunted, alchemists slain, and non-believers destroyed as Devil-worshipers. It is against that kind of Christianity that I advocate against.

I'm already facing the blow back of Islam, I don't fear a Christian blow back either.

Bring it. Just remember why the Vikings still cause fear and admiration over a thousand years later. Remember what happened to those who tried to force their god on us.

EscapeVelocity said...

I recognize Zensters apologia for Christianity, and general good will towards it.

EscapeVelocity said...

What I have said is that it cannot be allowed to Dominate the public square. -- Norse Alchemist

Do you think that Ethnic Danes should be able to dominate the public square in Denmark?

Then why do you oppose a country with 80% Christians, for Christians and their worldview, metaphysics, morality, and ethics to dominate the public square.

You cannot square this circle.

Tim Johnston said...

Norse -

you've finally got to a point where I can ask you a question.
You (rightly) attack certain anti-scientific and superstitious aspects of Christianity through history, but I'm wondering what is the attitude of Asatru towards modern society and Western civilisation.
Irish neo-pagans I have met (who referred to themselves as pagans, or even druids) claim to be followers of nature, almost animists, which would also seem incompatible with modern society. What do you think?
I like to think that my Viking ancestors were innovators, creators of technology and embracers of change.

EscapeVelocity said...

It puts you on the same side as those arguing that white Euros should not be allowed to dominate the public square.

Which is the core of the problem.

Subjugation of the majority's interests to minority's interests.

Svartwulf said...

Because when Danes dominate the public square in Denmark, they don't slaughter those other Danes that don't agree with them.

Rule by majority never ends well. Especially when that Majority has a long history of suppression and violence against those who disagree with it.

I oppose Christianity dominating in "Christian" Nations for many of the same reasons that people opposed Nazi's dominating in Germany. Christianity was place upon Europeans by Force, not by choice. Any Ideology that uses Force to make itself the law of the land and violently suppresses all other Ideologies and Cultures needs to be opposed.

There are good Christians out there who are decent people. I am generally happy to live and work with them. They have a right to exist and my religion/culture respects that. It is when that respect is not returned, a thing all to common with Christianity, that I rise up against.

I'm not squaring a circle. I'm drawing a line in stone.

Baron Bodissey said...

OK guys, this thread is a spent scene, and I'm closing it.

Your argument is going nowhere, and is off-topic, anyway.

Pick up your poker chips, cigars, and whiskey bottles, and resume proceedings at the saloon next door.